Legalize it and tax it. It's no worse for you than alcohol or cigarettes. There is a lot of hypocrisy surrounding this issue.

In terms of medical evidence, if people who are suffering say it helps, then that is enough for me. It's not fair for others who don't understand the pain of these illnesses to make the moral choice for people suffering.

People using it for medical reasons are hurting no one. They aren't trafficking in the drugs. Money could be much better spent by leaving these people alone.

In terms of medical evidence, if people who are suffering say it helps, then that is enough for me.

Although I do not necessarily disagree with you on this, just anedoctal case reports are not good enough for me. I don't oppose people who have cancer e.g. want THC have access to it if they pay for it, and if they pay for the cost of treating any adverse effects from it. THC is not exactly benign, cannabinoids can have a lot of potential adverse side effects.

It's not fair for others who don't understand the pain of these illnesses to make the moral choice for people suffering.

Where do you get the impression that people who want more data and more hard science are not understanding the issues?? AMA is not endorsing THC, most pharmacists are not endorsing it, I won't call most doctors and pharmacists "don't understand pain"

I really don't care one way or the other, BUT the main reason the Feds don't want it legal is that it's a wild plant and they have a had time controlling it as it is and there is NO MONEY in it for them.

I don't think that this is a Conservative versus Liberal issue. It is a states' rights issue. Once again the Federal gov't has usurped states' rights.

As for little to no evidence showing that MM works--studies are done based on funding. If there is no funding, then the study won't get done. Who provides most of the funding? It's the government or the pharmaceutical companies. Follow the money.

If you can't function due to chronic pain, you will grab at anything. Physicians often prescribe off-label, that is, Med "A" hasn't been approved to treat Condition "X", but anectdotal evidence shows that Med "A" works on Condition "X", so it is legally used for that. On the other hand, many physicians are untrained in the use of pain meds. They undertreat pain, or are afraid that patients will become addicted. No wonder ppl try to self-medicate.

It's a control issue. The Christian Taliban, currently in control of this country, will continue to stack the benches with people who can make these types of "moral judgements" without a basis in fact in the Constitution, which clearly states that any issues that aren't specifically identified in the Constitution are under the jurisdiction of the states or the people.

And as for State's rights....I personally find it funny that when it comes to automatic weapon control, Ten Commandment monuments on public land, counting Presidential election votes in Florida, or forcing a 13 year old rape victim to get parental permission for her abortion, the Supreme Court is totally 'hands-off'....... but God forbid people might treat their own illness.

I don't understand blaming this on Christians. There haven't been any new Supreme Court justices in a long time.

But ITA, the Court is selectively for states' rights. There doesn't seem to be a pattern. And as for the Constitution, that is selectively ignored at will by the Court. But the drift away from the Constitution, such as when the Court quotes international law to support its decisions, seems like it will be more frequent.

As for "forcing a 13 year old rape victim to get parental permission for her abortion"...let's see...crimes committed (child abuse, rape), to be followed by surgery (abortion)... getting parental permission is not unreasonable. After all, the same girl would need parental permission to have a tooth pulled, ears pierced, or get a tattoo, depending on the state. But the topic was medical marijuana.

Skatehappy, I think the issue of the 13 year old needing a parent's consent for abortion is this-what if the parent is the one who raped the child? That's where the issue gets sticky. Also, when forced to tell parents, some girls are too afraid and go for "back alley" abortions, which are unneccesarily dangerous.

gezando, it is one thing for doctors etc to understand pain from a theoretical point of view. It's another thing entirely to actually experience the pain.

gezando, it is one thing for doctors etc to understand pain from a theoretical point of view. It's another thing entirely to actually experience the pain.

LOL, doctors are human too, they are not exempt from pain themselves. So by your reasoning, a man shouldn't be an OBGYN because he will never be pregnant.
BTW when you talked about since cig and ETOH are legal, MJ should be legal too, I have no opinion about that. That is recreational use, not so called "medicinal use"

As for little to no evidence showing that MM works--studies are done based on funding. If there is no funding, then the study won't get done. Who provides most of the funding? It's the government or the pharmaceutical companies. Follow the money.

That is why I advocate more research in e.g. countries that have already make cannabinoid legal, how about in Canada? How about asking the MJ co op people to fund some of it. They are not selling it for free right, they are getting some $$ out of it right?

.

On the other hand, many physicians are untrained in the use of pain meds. They undertreat pain, or are afraid that patients will become addicted. No wonder ppl try to self-medicate.

Maybe you are right if MDs under treat pain, then they need to be trained and
better utilize the analgesics (with better evidence of efficacy than THC) to treat pain. I have no problem if ppl smoke MJ as long as they pay for the cost and the cost of treating the adverse side effects.

If you go back to the link provided by Ptichka, the article actually concluded that cannabinoid data is not robust, but there will always be a subpopulation of ppl who swears by it. I think they should study these minority population and see why they claim to only respond to THC. Do they have prior recreational history with MJ e.g. Do their brains process pain / pleasure different from others?

I absolutely don't mind if ppl treat their own illness, as long as they pay for it, and pay for any adverse effects and consequence that comes with this self treatment.

Like the sex offenders and pedophiles who were recently discovered to be receiving Viagra prescriptions? Perfectly legal.... :sheesh:

In Oregon the controlled sales of medicinal marijuana helped support the state health system. What makes you think those ill people weren't paying for it, directly or indirectly anyway?

I'll tell you where "adverse effects and consequence" from "self treatment" comes into play is with substances with good ol' boy names like Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, etc. More people self-medicate with depressants like those with verifiable obvious and tragic consequences that are in the headlines every single day....hypocrisy rampant.

So you're for the DEA raiding the homes of cancer patients using MM? (Oh, why the heck not, we've had most of our other civil liberties violated by this band of thugs in power anyway.) BTW I made it through the 60's without smoking marijuana, nor have I taken a painkiller stronger than Tylenol, BUT I support the right of people to be proactive in their pain control treatment. Who better to say what works and what doesn't for them? This is an issue to be decided by the citizens of a state, and I'll thanks the Feds to keep their paws off mine!

Like the sex offenders and pedophiles who were recently discovered to be receiving Viagra prescriptions? Perfectly legal.... :sheesh:

There is no solid medical evidence of using Sidenafil (viagra) for pedophilia, so consistent with what I said before, any substance (even though this case sidenafil is FDA approved for ED, and its safety profile is known) that does not have evidence backing its efficacy shouldn't be used. I hope they put an end it it now, it is a waste of $$

In Oregon the controlled sales of medicinal marijuana helped support the state health system. What makes you think those ill people weren't paying for it, directly or indirectly anyway?

Did I said they are not paying for it directly or indirectly. My exact words were as long as they pay for the cost of the MJ and the cost of treating the adverse side effects of it MJ I have no problem with it. I expect the growers and dispensers of MJ to pay tax etc. I also would like them to put part of their profit into funding some more research.

l tell you where "adverse effects and consequence" from "self treatment" comes into play is with substances with good ol' boy names like Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, etc. More people self-medicate with depressants like those with verifiable obvious and tragic consequences that are in the headlines every single day....hypocrisy rampant.

I already stated if ppl self treat, it is only reasonable that they pay for the cost of the substance and the cost of treating adverse effects, that includes alcohol.
I don't need you to tell me the adverse effects of alcohol, last I check there isn't a system in the body that is not ruined by the abuse of alcohol, wernicke korsakoff, cardiomyopathy, cirrhosis of the liver, pancreatitis just to name a few. Last I check, there is a long list of adverse side effects from cannabonids too, cannabis induced psychotic disorder, , cannabis induced anxiety disorder just to name a few. There are adverse effects with both, just becasuse alcohol has adverse effects does not mean cannabinoids is a safe miracle substance.

you're for the DEA raiding the homes of cancer patients using MM?

Definitely not. I don't support the claim of MJ as a harmless medicine b/c there is no solid scientific evidence.

Oh no one can tell an individual what works better for them re: pain control. There will always be a subpopulation minority who swears MJ is the only thing that works. That is why I advocate funding for studies on this minority population. Why MJ work for them, does it truly work as an analgesic? or does the cannabinoids work for them through their reward / pleasure centers (pathways) in their brains?

Why MJ work for them, does it truly work as an analgesic? or does the cannabinoids work for them through their reward / pleasure centers (pathways) in their brains?

gezando, if the anguish a dying person experiences is mitigated by the product, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would care what route it took to give the relief!! :frown2: When your house is on fire you don't care if the firetrucks take the interstate or the sidestreet so long as they get there to help you.

Hands off my state (Washington) - this is not a Federal issue. Period.

gezando, if the anguish a dying person experiences is mitigated by the product, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would care what route it took to give the relief!! :frown2: When your house is on fire you don't care if the firetrucks take the interstate or the sidestreet so long as they get there to help you.

Call it intellectual curiosity. BTW,if my house is on fire, I will try to get out, then after the dust settles, I will try to find out why and know all I can about what caused the fire.

Hands off my state (Washington) - this is not a Federal issue. Period.

I have no problem with that either. Since this debate I have tried to look more into this. I believe for some reason Janet Reno and Shalala ruled that it is illegal for MDs to prescribe MJ (the smoking form ) Not aware that Reno and Shalala are the ultraconservative monsters that most posters here are referring to. And I definitely don't agree with your very first message that big bad horrible pharmacuetical companies are behind this

BTW, I do not believe DEA agents will raid cancer pts houses. This law has been in effect since Clinton's time.